I want to reduce the Apostolic Palace defy resolution penalty from +5 :mad: to +2 :mad:. I have not been able to do that in XML (I've been looking for something like ANGER_DEFY_RESOLUTION, but have found nothing of the sort). Do I need to use python? How do I do it? Thanks.

I want to reduce the Apostolic Palace defy resolution penalty from -5 :mad: to -2 :mad:. I have not been able to do that in XML (I've been looking for something like ANGER_DEFY_RESOLUTION, but have found nothing of the sort). Do I need to use python? How do I do it? Thanks.

Hmm, I did a little searching of my own. You were on the right track it seems.

I found the following in the GlobalDefines.xml file (of BTS of course):

<Define>
<DefineName>DEFY_RESOLUTION_POP_ANGER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>5</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

I guess that is it.

Good luck modding it. :thumbsup:

Are you often condemned as a villain?

Reminds me of a particular time when the Zulu had about a dozen war weariness unhappy points due to an ongoing conflict with me, and then he proposed a universal peace amongst our Jewish brothers (he got elected to the head of the AP, somehow--nobody liked me enough for some reason...maybe Shaka threatened them before the election or something). Of course, he immediately defied his own resolution, causing even more unhappiness problems in his own cities.

Of course, he immediately defied his own resolution, causing even more unhappiness problems in his own cities.

How ridiculously amusing. :lol:

^^Maybe shaka should mod his xml to
<Define>
<DefineName>DEFY_RESOLUTION_POP_ANGER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>-5</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

or, in plain english, defying the AP would reduce :mad: :lol:

P.S Is this even possible?

Can you just simply change this value in the XML file, or does the program need to be recompiled or something to make it work? I've never programmed in XML so I don't know how it works.

XML is not properly programming... it is simply a glorified html ( the code behing web pages ) and it can be altered using any text editor ( even notepad ). Because it is not real programming ( making exe and dll files ) you don't need to compile.

P.S always backup...

Here is a suggestion - be on top and make sure you pick resolutions you will not defy.

However, its virtually impossible to do it "all the time."

Can you just simply change this value in the XML file, or does the program need to be recompiled or something to make it work? I've never programmed in XML so I don't know how it works.

Sure thing. But, as a safe precaution, copy the file you are going to alter into a corresponding folder in CustomAssets/XML/whatever the file name is. This has the same effect as backing up the file, and will automatically load your new version upon starting Civ4. If it doesn't work right, take it out of CustomAssets and your game will work as installed.

@Common Sensei: Shaka doesn't seem to have that diplomatic knack. I was almost on the floor laughing when I saw that...

Can you just simply change this value in the XML file, or does the program need to be recompiled or something to make it work? I've never programmed in XML so I don't know how it works.

As others have said before, make sure that before you do anything on that file, you have made a copy of it.

After that, mod it according to your needs, save it and reload BtS. Make sure that you either have cleared the cache or that you hold and press the SHIFT key while loading to avoid loading of cached values.

I found the following in the GlobalDefines.xml file (of BTS of course):

<Define>
<DefineName>DEFY_RESOLUTION_POP_ANGER</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>5</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

I guess that is it.

Great, thanks! I've just tested it in the WB, and it works for both the human player and the AI. (In my test I've only used the U.N., but I assume it works with the AP as well).

In GlobalDefines, there's also a DEFY_RESOLUTION_ANGER_DIVISOR that sets how long unhappiness lasts.

I have been undecided between two nerfings:
(A) Either +2 :mad: for 20 turns,
(B) Or +5 :mad: for 8 turns.In the end, I went for option (A).

Are you often condemned as a villain?

Not really, but sometimes the proposed resolutions lead to illogical or frustating situations, and it's not always possible to control or raze the AP.

he immediately defied his own resolution, causing even more unhappiness problems in his own cities.

How can the AI defy the resolutions they themselves propose? I am never given the option to defy when I am myself the propounder. :confused:

In GlobalDefines, there's also a DEFY_RESOLUTION_ANGER_DIVISOR that sets how long unhappiness lasts.

I have been undecided between two nerfings:
(A) Either +2 :mad: for 20 turns,
(B) Or +5 :mad: for 8 turns.In the end, I went for option (A).


Wait a second. I thought this unhappiness penalty lasted until you vote on a resolution that passes. You're saying here that regardless of that, it expires in a certain number of turns? Have you tested it? If so, the civlopedia explanation is not correct.

Great, thanks! I've just tested it in the WB, and it works for both the human player and the AI. (In my test I've only used the U.N., but I assume it works with the AP as well).

In GlobalDefines, there's also a DEFY_RESOLUTION_ANGER_DIVISOR that sets how long unhappiness lasts.

I have been undecided between two nerfings:
(A) Either +2 :mad: for 20 turns,
(B) Or +5 :mad: for 8 turns.In the end, I went for option (A).

I've also thought about reducing the effects of defying a resolution. Sure, it should hurt you a bit to defy a resolution, but usually my cities are close to the happy cap and a 5 happiness hit is really a lot. Even in an empire of size 20 cities, it means you're losing (potentially) a quarter of your working citizens. I think I will reduce it a little less than you did though as I really want it to hurt a bit. 2 unhappiness is a bit too low to dissuade me from defying a resolution, so I think I'll change it to 3 unhappiness for 20 turns.

If I had to choose between 2 :mad: for 20 turns and 5 :mad: 8 turns, then I'd choose the 2 :mad: for 20 turns. It has a more interesting game effect. When you defy resolutions twice in a row, it will hurt even more as it should in my opinion. There will be a long period during which you suffer the unhappiness of both defied resolutions. You can even get the combined unhappiness of more than 2 defied missions. So if the UN leader really wants to ratify a certain resolution and you keep defying, then you'll suffer (as you should in my opinion).

Have fun playing your mod. :)

You're saying here that regardless of that, it expires in a certain number of turns? Have you tested it?

Yes, I've tested it. If DEFY_RESOLUTION_ANGER_DIVISOR=N, then it appears that the unhappiness penalty will not last longer than N turns.

If I had to choose between 2 :mad: for 20 turns and 5 :mad: 8 turns, then I'd choose the 2 :mad: for 20 turns. It has a more interesting game effect. When you defy resolutions twice in a row, it will hurt even more as it should in my opinion.

That is precisely the reason why I prefer the reduced penalty to last for longer: so that the effects of repeated defiances will pile up. Just one occasional defiance should, I think, have a relatively small impact, but multiple defiances in a row should have more serious consequences.

Yes, I've tested it. If DEFY_RESOLUTION_ANGER_DIVISOR=N, then it appears that the unhappiness penalty will not last longer than N turns.


Well that's very interesting. If one trusted the civlopedia (like me), they would assume that the penalty stays in place for all time until you "vote on a resolution that passes."

So what happened to the "vote on a resolution that passes"? Does this still apply? If you are suffering the penalty and vote on a resolution that passes, does the anger go away immediately instead of waiting the 8 turns?

I haven't played with it, because I thought defying a resolution could be a major problem if another vote doesn't come up for a long time. I may defy more often now knowing the anger will go away by itself eventually, and I don't have to wait to vote on a resolution that passes.

Well that's very interesting. If one trusted the civlopedia (like me), they would assume that the penalty stays in place for all time until you "vote on a resolution that passes."

So what happened to the "vote on a resolution that passes"? Does this still apply? If you are suffering the penalty and vote on a resolution that passes, does the anger go away immediately instead of waiting the 8 turns?

I haven't played with it, because I thought defying a resolution could be a major problem if another vote doesn't come up for a long time. I may defy more often now knowing the anger will go away by itself eventually, and I don't have to wait to vote on a resolution that passes.

I don't know if the unhappiness disappears if you vote on a resolution that passes. You could test it. I do know that the standard values are 5 unhappiness for 20 turns, not 8 turns. (it's stored in the linked file, see 2-nd post in this thread) That's not something that you're likely to ignore. I also don't know if these values scale with game speed settings. They should, but I don't know if they will.

If one trusted the civlopedia (like me), they would assume that the penalty stays in place for all time until you "vote on a resolution that passes." So what happened to the "vote on a resolution that passes"? Does this still apply?

I think that what happens in the standard game is as follows: if you defy a resolution, the 5 :mad: faces stay for 20 turns and you are demoted to "voting member" as opposed to "full member". So, in effect, there are two penalties: unhappiness and demotion, with the latter lasting until you vote on a resolution that passes.

Once I had 20 :mad: due to some defied UN resolutions...I was the UN builder but they voted against me...I still have to understand how those two weird palaces are supposed to work...once built how can I get rid of it ?

Those 20 :mad: lasted for a while despiting later I accepted few UN resolutions then they reduced to 15 :mad: but my empire felt the hit for sure. Almost every city population reduced to 1 or 2 then I managed to recover but I am pretty sure that the first resolution accepted does not cancel anything.

BTW when a diplo screen opens with the character trait animation,do you hear any background music ?

I think that what happens in the standard game is as follows: if you defy a resolution, the 5 :mad: faces stay for 20 turns and you are demoted to "voting member" as opposed to "full member". So, in effect, there are two penalties: unhappiness and demotion, with the latter lasting until you vote on a resolution that passes.

Hmm, maybe the "vote on a resolution that passes" was for the Apostolic Palace member status as you point out. Maybe I'm getting my AP and UN mixed up.

So, this is how I see it now. Let me know if anyone thinks differently:

If you defy an Apostolic Palace resolution:
1. You are demoted to voting member until you vote on a resolution that passes
2. Your cities suffer 5 unhappiness for 20 turns.

If you defy a UN resolution:
1. Your cities suffer 5 unhappiness for 20 turns.

This is confusing because the AP and UN civlopedia entries are together.

Once I had 20 :mad: due to some defied UN resolutions...I was the UN builder but they voted against me...I still have to understand how those two weird palaces are supposed to work...once built how can I get rid of it ?

Those 20 :mad: lasted for a while despiting later I accepted few UN resolutions then they reduced to 15 :mad: but my empire felt the hit for sure. Almost every city population reduced to 1 or 2 then I managed to recover but I am pretty sure that the first resolution accepted does not cancel anything.

BTW when a diplo screen opens with the character trait animation,do you hear any background music ?

This is why I'm setting the unhappiness mod to 0 (or maybe 1 in case there's some weird division in the code). After building a winning civ for a few hundred turns I defied the same resolution back-to-back. I got hit with a -10 :mad: in nearly all of my cities for the 20 turns. It reduced my population by at least half, and one 20+ pop city reduced to 5.

This is absolutely nuts. Your citizens refuse to work and commit suicide because you defied a UN resolution? I was beyond pissed [pissed] . Why should this affect your own citizens? What it should affect is the diplomatic relations you have with the other civs that voted for the resolution you defied. You should be hit with a diplomatic penalty. I'm not sure if this would require changing the code or some XML somewhere.

Regardless, the unhappiness goes to 0 for me. If an AI defies something I want, then I'll simply do what any angry civ would do, destroy it :ar15: .

This is absolutely nuts. Your citizens refuse to work and commit suicide because you defied a UN resolution? I was beyond pissed [pissed] . Why should this affect your own citizens? What it should affect is the diplomatic relations you have with the other civs that voted for the resolution you defied. You should be hit with a diplomatic penalty. I'm not sure if this would require changing the code or some XML somewhere.

I remember reading that this decision was made to create a larger deterrent to defying resolutions. If it was only a diplomatic hit, most human players might ignore it indefinitely. What's the point in getting a "-5 you defied a resolution" when the other civs already hate you because you're taking over the world.

This city unhappiness is supposed to give you pause before defying everything that comes up. While historically silly, it brings balance to the game. Otherwise the AP and UN would be fairly powerless (in the game).

I think the -5 is a little steep, and will consider changing it also.

I remember reading that this decision was made to create a larger deterrent to defying resolutions. If it was only a diplomatic hit, most human players might ignore it indefinitely. What's the point in getting a "-5 you defied a resolution" when the other civs already hate you because you're taking over the world.

This city unhappiness is supposed to give you pause before defying everything that comes up. While historically silly, it brings balance to the game. Otherwise the AP and UN would be fairly powerless (in the game).

I think the -5 is a little steep, and will consider changing it also.

I understand the point, but if you're already taking over the world, the UN is indeed powerless. If you're the biggest, baddest dude on the block, and the neighbors say you have to mow your lawn and you don't want to, the only way left is to force you.

If you take a -5 diplomacy hit, that pretty much rules out a diplomatic victory, probably most trading opportunities, and risks having all of the aggressive AIs deciding to go to war against you. If you keep defying resolutions, it won't be long before all the other civs are furious with you. But even then, if you're way ahead on tech and a monster with military, who cares?

If it was only a diplomatic hit, most human players might ignore it indefinitely


If a human player defies AP or UN resolutions it means he is powerful enough to deal with the consequences. In this case it wouldn't really matter IMO if the whole world world is against the human,talking from a military point of view.

If the circumstances are different,I mean there is a kind of balance among civs, the human player will certainly think twice before doing that,you know that on balanced games your diplo plays a role and you may decide to adhere to avoid the abovementioned circumstances.

Finally, under no circumstances at all your people will have to suicide if you defies,it's simply a consequence of the super power you are having in that moment and suiciding people is the weirdiest and wrongest way to react to those decisions. It is like to drop two dozens of nuclear bombs if defying resolutions,I believe that's simply an outrageous and cheap AI reaction allied with the game engine too.

Heavy and long diplo penalties are the best and only solution.

If a human player defies AP or UN resolutions it means he is powerful enough to deal with the consequences. In this case it wouldn't really matter IMO if the whole world world is against the human,talking from a military point of view.

If the circumstances are different,I mean there is a kind of balance among civs, the human player will certainly think twice before doing that,you know that on balanced games your diplo plays a role and you may decide to adhere to avoid the abovementioned circumstances.

Finally, under no circumstances at all your people will have to suicide if you defies,it's simply a consequence of the super power you are having in that moment and suiciding people is the weirdiest and wrongest way to react to those decisions. It is like to drop two dozens of nuclear bombs if defying resolutions,I believe that's simply an outrageous and cheap AI reaction allied with the game engine too.

Heavy and long diplo penalties are the best and only solution.

I personally think they (the programmes/designers) chose for this implementation to have a meaningful penalty in both singleplayer and multiplayer. A diplomatic penalty would be meaningless in multiplayer. A human player decides who are his human friends and opponents in an entirely different way and defying a AP/UN vote will often be considered inconsequential by your opponents in a multiplayer game.

In singleplayer, I would also have preferred a diplomatic penalty. As long as the game and victory are in the balance, it is a meaningful penalty. Maybe a combination of a serious diplomatic penalty and a small happiness penalty would also work for singleplayer. The people that you're governing will probably not be that satisfied with the constant bickering with all the other nations because of your policies. In multiplayer, the diplomatic penalty would disappear or at least be meaningless, but the unhappiness penalty could be increased to compensate.

I personally think they (the programmes/designers) chose for this implementation to have a meaningful penalty in both singleplayer and multiplayer. A diplomatic penalty would be meaningless in multiplayer. A human player decides who are his human friends and opponents in an entirely different way and defying a AP/UN vote will often be considered inconsequential by your opponents in a multiplayer game.

I hadn't thought of the multiplayer angle since I've never played multiplayer Civ4. But I think there would be diplomatic consequences based on AP/UN votes. The votes reveal something about the state-of-mind of your opponents. Since human players know the consequences of having certain civics and other things becoming permanent, knowing which ones they defy would give you information about their future intentions. In fact, the AP/UN might become a greater aspect of multiplayer games than it is in single player. If someone defies the vote to ban nuclear weapons, for example, you have a good idea on what's being planned and that you probably should build SDI and some bunkers ;) .

I hadn't thought of the multiplayer angle since I've never played multiplayer Civ4. But I think there would be diplomatic consequences based on AP/UN votes. The votes reveal something about the state-of-mind of your opponents. Since human players know the consequences of having certain civics and other things becoming permanent, knowing which ones they defy would give you information about their future intentions. In fact, the AP/UN might become a greater aspect of multiplayer games than it is in single player. If someone defies the vote to ban nuclear weapons, for example, you have a good idea on what's being planned and that you probably should build SDI and some bunkers ;) .

There might be some diplomatic consequences based on defying certain proposals. But I can't see how defying certain universal civics will result in hatred by your human competitors.

If you're crushing some human opponent and someone proposes the UN resolution to end the war, then you might defy that resolution. In that case you might hate the one who proposed the mission because the act of defying results in unhappiness in your cities which was probably the goal of the one who proposed the resolution.

Diplomatic effects of the UN and AP resolutions work entirely different in multiplayer because human players playing the game in multiplayer look at the game as a game. The AI is programmed to act in a somewhat more real life way. Because of this different way of looking at the UN and AP, the act of defying resolutions has an entirely different diplomatic result.

I can't see a human player looking at the Glance screen in multiplayer and seeing a -3 diplomacy modifier from defying the UN as a reason to change his/her policy against another human player. The Glance screen is totally useless in multiplayer, it's not how humans determine their policies against one another. Any programmed diplomacy modifiers from the defying the UN and AP will be totally ignored in multiplayer games.

How can the AI defy the resolutions they themselves propose? I am never given the option to defy when I am myself the propounder. :confused:

I'm honestly not sure. It was the first game I played when I got BtS, so it was not patched at all. It might have been a bug, but it was damned hilarious.

Wow, you guys are wusses! Maybe it's because I usually control both the AP and UN (or, at least, am Friendly with whomever does), I don't really have any problems with defying resolutions.

Lets say you've got -5 unhappiness, a city of size 20, and three religions. You're playing on Monarch (base happiness: +4), and you're Charismatic (+1 happiness from monuments and broadcast towers). Let's also assume that you have a state religion. You haven't pissed off your neighbors, and they're all willing to trade with you, so you have access to many different resources.

Total unhappiness: -25
Monument: +1 for Charismatic leaders
Broadcast Tower: +1 for Charismatic leaders, +1 per 10% culture, +1 from hit media
Colosseum: +1, +1 per 20% culture
Theatre: +1 per 10% culture, +1 from dye
Market: +1 from fur, ivory, silk, and whale
Forge: +1 from gems, gold, and silver
Temple: +1 per religion
Cathedral: +2 for state religion, +1 for incense
State Religion: +1 happiness

Let's say the cultural slider is at 0%, so that we don't need to figure out how much commerce the city makes. So far, without any resources, we're up to +9 happiness, which is pretty sad, admittedly. We're also assuming it's possible to build a cathedral, which I think is legitimate. You may disagree. Okay, that leaves -16 unhappiness to deal with. If we have wine, sugar, gems, gold, silver, silk, dye, and incense (whales, ivory, and furs can become obsolete), we get +16 happiness, for a grand total of +25 happiness. Problem solved. If you count the various hit media, that's another +6 happiness.

Maybe that's assuming too much. Let's say that you can only find gems, gold, and silk. It's the mid-game, and you've pissed off all your neighbors, so they refuse to trade their stuff to you. You're still Charismatic, playing on Monarch, and have a state religion. However, you only have two religions, and cathedrals are not possible (you don't have music, say). However, let's say that you got the Pyramids, and you're running Representation. In your biggest cities, you get an automatic +3 happiness. In those cities, we're still looking at around -6 unhappiness left to remove. That's painful, but we can deal. Let's bring the cultural slider up to 20%. That'll bring in two happy faces from the theatre and one from the colosseum. We'll still have another three angry faces to deal with, but, hopefully, the commerce we bring in is substantial enough to get rid of them.

I've always thought that defying resolutions was rather painless. Sure, after two or three times, you're crippled, but aren't you supposed to be? Even then, cranking up the cultural slider to 30% will take care of quite a few of those villainous faces (30% of 80 commerce would be 24), thanks to your obsessive cottage spam. That leaves you with 70% to allocate to your research, which is quite respectable.

I just can't see why someone would want it nerfed.

So, this is how I see it now. Let me know if anyone thinks differently:
If you defy an Apostolic Palace resolution:
1. You are demoted to voting member until you vote on a resolution that passes
2. Your cities suffer 5 unhappiness for 20 turns.
If you defy a UN resolution:
1. Your cities suffer 5 unhappiness for 20 turns.
This is confusing because the AP and UN civlopedia entries are together.

I think that the ‘full member’/’voting member’ distinction applies to the UN as well (e.g. if you are merely a UN voting member you are not eligible for diplomatic victory via the UN).

Another point worth noting is that it appears that you get no penalty from defying a resolution that wouldn't have passed anyway because the majority ended up voting ‘no’. So I think that you are penalised only under those conditions:
(1) you defy the resolution and
(2) the resolution would have passed if you hadn't defied it.


Wow, you guys are wusses! Maybe it's because I usually control both the AP and UN (or, at least, am Friendly with whomever does), I don't really have any problems with defying resolutions. Lets say you've got -5 unhappiness, a city of size 20, and three religions. You're playing on Monarch

I stop you there: I don't usually play below Immortal. (This is not to say not that I usually WIN at Immortal and above, but that’s another issue). Furthermore, some of the happiness producing building you have mentioned (like the broadcast tower) may not be available when the AP comes around (and I rarely build coliseums anyway).

There might be some diplomatic consequences based on defying certain proposals. But I can't see how defying certain universal civics will result in hatred by your human competitors.

If you're crushing some human opponent and someone proposes the UN resolution to end the war, then you might defy that resolution. In that case you might hate the one who proposed the mission because the act of defying results in unhappiness in your cities which was probably the goal of the one who proposed the resolution.

Diplomatic effects of the UN and AP resolutions work entirely different in multiplayer because human players playing the game in multiplayer look at the game as a game. The AI is programmed to act in a somewhat more real life way. Because of this different way of looking at the UN and AP, the act of defying resolutions has an entirely different diplomatic result.

I can't see a human player looking at the Glance screen in multiplayer and seeing a -3 diplomacy modifier from defying the UN as a reason to change his/her policy against another human player. The Glance screen is totally useless in multiplayer, it's not how humans determine their policies against one another. Any programmed diplomacy modifiers from the defying the UN and AP will be totally ignored in multiplayer games.

Well, defying a resolution may not result in hatred, but it gives your human opponents information about you. You might want to keep your options open for certain civics based on your strategy. For example, you might want to keep open options for civics useful in war, or maybe you have plans to force a civics switch on another player using a spy.

But this unhappiness mechanism can be easily abused. Let's say you were elected the Secretary General and there's a civ you want to hurt without declaring war. If the human player defies a resolution, you just keep putting the same one up for a vote. A human player suddenly finding himself with a -15 unhappiness modifier in most of his cities is going to be a bit upset.

Wow, you guys are wusses! Maybe it's because I usually control both the AP and UN (or, at least, am Friendly with whomever does), I don't really have any problems with defying resolutions.

Lets say you've got -5 unhappiness, a city of size 20, and three religions. You're playing on Monarch (base happiness: +4), and you're Charismatic (+1 happiness from monuments and broadcast towers). Let's also assume that you have a state religion. You haven't pissed off your neighbors, and they're all willing to trade with you, so you have access to many different resources.

Interesting analysis. Lots of ifs and assumptions. If you build the AP it's easy to control it. However, even if you build the UN there's no guarantee you'll control it. My playing style doesn't always lead me to have friendly neighbors. Just the way it is for me, I guess :) :ar15: .

Well, defying a resolution may not result in hatred, but it gives your human opponents information about you. You might want to keep your options open for certain civics based on your strategy. For example, you might want to keep open options for civics useful in war, or maybe you have plans to force a civics switch on another player using a spy.

But this unhappiness mechanism can be easily abused. Let's say you were elected the Secretary General and there's a civ you want to hurt without declaring war. If the human player defies a resolution, you just keep putting the same one up for a vote. A human player suddenly finding himself with a -15 unhappiness modifier in most of his cities is going to be a bit upset.

That last part is what I said. But it means that in multiplayer, the diplomacy effect is the other way around. The one getting the unhappiness penalty is getting upset with the one who put forth the resolution, not every else is getting upset with the one who defies the resolution.

Using diplomatic penalties for defying the UN and AP just has no effect in multiplayer because players don't base their relations with other players on some number in the Glance screen.